According to my Bible, Ms. Hale is wrong per Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Christians must "fight the good fight" and stand for moral principles no matter how unpopular they may be.

According to my Bible, Ms. Hale is wrong per Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Christians must "fight the good fight" and stand for moral principles no matter how unpopular they may be.

According to my Bible, Ms. Hale is wrong per Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Christians must "fight the good fight" and stand for moral principles no matter how unpopular they may be.

Then you don't eat pork or shellfish as this is also a no, no according to Leviticus. You must not have a mortgage since the lending of money for profit is also not to be entered into. You must own a slave or two or have a more than one marrage partner as this is allowed and practiced in the Old Testament. The problem with picking and choosing those scriptures that back one's opinion is those other scriptures that then make the Christian "fighting the good fight" look silly doing so.

<quoted text>Then you don't eat pork or shellfish as this is also a no, no according to Leviticus. You must not have a mortgage since the lending of money for profit is also not to be entered into. You must own a slave or two or have a more than one marrage partner as this is allowed and practiced in the Old Testament. The problem with picking and choosing those scriptures that back one's opinion is those other scriptures that then make the Christian "fighting the good fight" look silly doing so.

The Apostle Paul stated repeatedly that Christians are not under the Old Testament Law. In Galatians 2:1516 he wrote, "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." In Romans 7:4 Paul stated, "You also died to the law through the body of Christ." In Galatians 3:25 he declared, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Paul argued vigorously against Christians returning to the Old Testament Law.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it. Jesus was saying that He did not come to sweep away the righteous demands of the Law, but that He came to fulfill its righteous demands.

In addition, Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law and its meaning, as other passages in Matthew indicate. Jesus restated some of the Old Testament laws (19:1819); some He modified (5:3132); some He intensified (5:2122, 2728 ); and, others He changed significantly (5:3337, 3842, 4347). Some laws He abrogated entirely (Mark 7:1519). Jesus was not advocating the continuation of the traditional Jewish approach of adherence to the Law, nor was He advocating that the Law be dismissed altogether. He was proclaiming that the meaning of the Law must be interpreted in light of His coming and in light of the profound changes introduced by the New Covenant through his sacrifice.

No matter which translation you read, God's condemnation of homosexual practice was clearly restated in the New Testament, in Romans 1:26-27:

"...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."

<quoted text>The Apostle Paul stated repeatedly that Christians are not under the Old Testament Law. In Galatians 2:1516 he wrote, "A man is not justified by observing the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ." In Romans 7:4 Paul stated, "You also died to the law through the body of Christ." In Galatians 3:25 he declared, "Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law." Paul argued vigorously against Christians returning to the Old Testament Law.Jesus himself said in Matthew 5:17, "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Jesus did not claim that He came to observe the Law or to keep the Law; rather He came to fulfill it. Jesus was saying that He did not come to sweep away the righteous demands of the Law, but that He came to fulfill its righteous demands.In addition, Jesus was the final Interpreter of and Authority over the Law and its meaning, as other passages in Matthew indicate. Jesus restated some of the Old Testament laws (19:1819); some He modified (5:3132); some He intensified (5:2122, 2728 ); and, others He changed significantly (5:3337, 3842, 4347). Some laws He abrogated entirely (Mark 7:1519). Jesus was not advocating the continuation of the traditional Jewish approach of adherence to the Law, nor was He advocating that the Law be dismissed altogether. He was proclaiming that the meaning of the Law must be interpreted in light of His coming and in light of the profound changes introduced by the New Covenant through his sacrifice.No matter which translation you read, God's condemnation of homosexual practice was clearly restated in the New Testament, in Romans 1:26-27:"...Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error."However, Christianity aside, rational human beings recognize homosexual behavior as aberrant to nature.

Thanks for the diatribe, most of which I skimmed over. The poster quoted Leviticus. I called attention to ofther pronouncements from Leviticus. That was all. Pulling verses from scripture is fine for what it is worth. When one reads what comes before Romans 1:26-27 one finds out that God handed over those individuals who had turned from the truth of God to idols. How this all fits into the reality of homosexual attraction I will leave up to your "rational mind".

According to my Bible, Ms. Hale is wrong per Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Christians must "fight the good fight" and stand for moral principles no matter how unpopular they may be.

If your assertion is that the woman was right to be fired because she "sinned," then tell me who would be left working for the RCC?

Give me a break. When so-called Christians want to shaft someone for being gay, they are not standing for any moral principle. They are using ancient texts written by primitive superstitious people to validate their ignorance and prejudice.

<quoted text>If your assertion is that the woman was right to be fired because she "sinned," then tell me who would be left working for the RCC?Give me a break. When so-called Christians want to shaft someone for being gay, they are not standing for any moral principle. They are using ancient texts written by primitive superstitious people to validate their ignorance and prejudice.

So even the barnyard animals know better huh? Well you just might be right! Homosexuality in the animal kingdom and over 1,500 examples! Now what? And the last time I checked we were still part of that animal kingdom! Your ignorance knows no bounds!

<quoted text>If your assertion is that the woman was right to be fired because she "sinned," then tell me who would be left working for the RCC?Give me a break. When so-called Christians want to shaft someone for being gay, they are not standing for any moral principle. They are using ancient texts written by primitive superstitious people to validate their ignorance and prejudice.

The "text" in play here was Hale's employment contract, which she violated.

<quoted text>So even the barnyard animals know better huh? Well you just might be right! Homosexuality in the animal kingdom and over 1,500 examples! Now what? And the last time I checked we were still part of that animal kingdom! Your ignorance knows no bounds!Homosexuality in the animal kingdom!http://www.health.am/sex/more/1500-animal-spe...

According to my Bible, Ms. Hale is wrong per Leviticus 18:22 which reads "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. Christians must "fight the good fight" and stand for moral principles no matter how unpopular they may be.

The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him:Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said,By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice came to him again a second time,What God has made clean, do not call common.

<quoted text>FAIL.Acts 10:9-15The next day, as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. And he became hungry and wanted something to eat, but while they were preparing it, he fell into a trance and saw the heavens opened and something like a great sheet descending, being let down by its four corners upon the earth. In it were all kinds of animals and reptiles and birds of the air. And there came a voice to him:Rise, Peter; kill and eat. But Peter said,By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice came to him again a second time,What God has made clean, do not call common.

You fail. They are referring to leviticus. p.s. bible quotes don't proove anything, it's a book of fiction!

Stating that a book is fiction, is not bigotry. My statement, in no way, relates to intollerance. Every one is free to believe what they want. What the church did, is act on it's intollerance towards others, because they don't agree with it based on their beliefs. That is bigotry.

<quoted text>Stating that a book is fiction, is not bigotry. My statement, in no way, relates to intollerance. Every one is free to believe what they want. What the church did, is act on it's intollerance towards others, because they don't agree with it based on their beliefs. That is bigotry.

<quoted text>Stating that a book is fiction, is not bigotry. My statement, in no way, relates to intollerance. Every one is free to believe what they want. What the church did, is act on it's intollerance towards others, because they don't agree with it based on their beliefs. That is bigotry.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.